Immigration and Morality
Time and time again, I see posts and opinions indicating that the current administration of the United States is heartless and cruel. I hear people whom I would consider to be intelligent and decent stating that we've been dropping the ball on a compassionate and ethical approach to immigration for many years, and it has gotten to a breaking point as children are now being separated from their families due to Trump's zero-tolerance policy. Many emotionally charged reports are coming out such as this report from CNN that illustrates the separation of a breastfeeding baby from her mother while nursing. This obviously tugs at the heartstrings, nobody wants to see a baby taken from her mother in any context, but it does bring to the table a bigger question: What is the moral obligation of the United States in all of this and are we fulfilling it?
Why do we have so many immigrants?
Immigrants come for a variety of reasons. In the best case scenarios, respectable and brilliant minds decide that they can accomplish more in America than anywhere else, so they come to the United States to make a real difference in the world by elevating their potential for production of their ideas. In the worst case scenarios, some are running away from terror and scared for their life and the life of their children and simply hope to survive. In a nation where immigrants have historically been successful, and where by assimilating to the society, anybody can become prosperous within very few generations (or less), it's not surprising that many wish to head our way.
The great news is, they can! There are procedures in place where one can be granted citizenship. Those avenues are suited well for the former of the two examples above all the way to someone who simply wants a better life and is willing to learn the rules of the "game" and can assimilate well to our society. Where we run into most of our illegal immigration is the latter example, and to be clear (outside of legitimate racists) nobody wants these groups to suffer and we all feel compassion for them. This is often forgotten in the midst of ad hominem filled "debates" that break out online, again, we all (minus dumb racists, very small portion of America) care about people that are suffering. To complicate things, there are also illegal immigrants who are members of nefarious group such as MS-13. It is, after-all, illegal immigration so lets' not discount the capacity for criminals to perform illegal acts. People from MS-13 or similar groups/cartels come across the border for nefarious purposes such as selling drugs, weapons, and generally taking what they can from law abiding citizens. I think it's obvious why we don't what this sub-set of the illegal immigrants here, so I won't discuss them further in this particular piece. After all, nobody that's making a moral case for loose borders is wanting gang bangers (I hope).
What sort of contribution do illegal immigrants offer?
Part of this is going to sound harsh, so let's just get it out of the way now. People who desperately want to enter the US and cannot do so through the proper channels are typically not high skill workers. It's not a knock on the ethnicity, it's simply a reality. These are people that, often through no fault of their own, may have fallen upon hard times in their country of origin. They could be oppressed, starving, or otherwise unable to provide for their family. This doesn't make them bad people, and this is typically the emotional appeal that leads people to believe we have a moral duty to help these people. But, it's a double-edged sword and we need to recognize this. If unskilled laborers are entering the US illegally (or legally) we need to take a look at the jobs they can fill. Then, we also need to look at who either has those jobs now or would want those jobs if they weren't filled by illegal immigrants. It turns out, one of the groups impacted the most by illegal immigration is the black community. Check out this excerpt from cis.org.
"Several studies have found that immigration has impacted the wages or employment of native-born African Americans. This includes recent studies by Borjas, Grogger, and Hanson that found that immigration reduces labor force participation of the least-educated black men.[2] Research by Andrew Sum, Paul Harrington, and Ishwar Khatiwada at Northeastern University has found that immigrants are displacing young native-born men in the labor market and that the largest impact is on blacks and Hispanics.[3] In my own research I have found that blacks are more likely to be in competition with immigrants than are whites.[4] A 1995 study by Augustine Kposowa concluded that, "non-whites appear to lose jobs to immigrants and their earnings are depressed by immigrants."[5] A 1998 study of the New York area by Howell and Mueller found that a 10-percentage-point increase in the immigrant share of an occupation reduced wages of black men about five percentage points. Given the large immigrant share of the occupations they studied, this implies a significant impact on native-born blacks.[6]"
Source Document
Document Sources Given
- [2]Immigration and African-American Employment Opportunities: The Response of Wages, Employment, and Incarceration to Labor Supply Shocks. By George J. Borjas, Jeffrey Grogger, and Gordon H. Hanson Working Paper 12518.
- [3]The Impact of New Immigrants on Young Native-Born Workers, 2000-2005, September 2006 By Andrew Sum, Paul Harrington, and Ishwar Khatiwada.
- [4]In addition to the results shown in Table 1, which focus on illegal immigration, in a 1998 study published by the Center for Immigration Studies, I found that native-born blacks are more likely to be in competition with immigrants than are whites. The Wages of Immigration: The Effect on the Low-Skilled Labor Market.
- [5]Augustine J. Kposowa, "The Impact of Immigration on Unemployment and Earnings among Racial Minorities in the United States," in Ethnic and Racial Studies, Volume 18, Number 3, July 1995.
- [6]"The Effects of Immigrants on African-American Earnings: A Jobs-Level Analysis of the New York City Labor Market, 1979-89" (November 1997). Levy Economics Institute Working Paper No. 210. By David Howell and Elizabeth Mueller.
So, we can conclude that illegal immigrants are likely to contribute to the extent that many will work low skill jobs, we'll factor in some tax revenue estimates in the next section that relate to this. However, off the bat we need to understand that we're displacing jobs that American citizens would take otherwise. If we really want to think critically, we can try to estimate the future impact of this using something similar to a financial NPV (net present value) using displaced job revenue and a more complex additional variable to account for the spiraling and regressive effect this has on the black community. Perhaps that can be a more complicated post for another time.
This source is also mostly focused on the impact to the black community (purely for statistical reasons), but it would also impact all entry level/low skill positions including teenagers trying to get work experience, and those who were raised in poverty from all ethnicities. So, at this point, we know that we can offer a relative safe haven to these immigrants and they can find work here, but there is already a cost in displaced jobs that is very significant. It would not be unreasonable to argue that we're already crossing a moral boundary in regards to our obligations to our citizens, but let's trek onward to see what other impact immigration has.
What's the economic impact of illegal immigrants?
One talking point of those who want to secure the border is that illegal immigration costs the United States Billions of dollars annualy. Is this true? The short answer is yes, undeniably. Some estimates have stated it could be as much as $300,000,000,000 annually. However, a more conservative and reasonable estimate from FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform) in September of 2017 pegs this number around $134,863,455,364 in government expenditures for both state and local government. They also estimate that there are approximately $18,968,857,700 in taxes paid by illegal immigrants making the estimated net cost of illegal immigration about $116 Billion.
The same source breaks down those numbers further, lots of money goes to things like justice expenditures and medical costs. For reference, a report from nationalpriorities.org states that our 2015 federal budget consisted of $70 Billion for Education. So, we've been spending more money (significantly more) due to illegal immigration than we have on our discretionary education spending. This also was more than the sum of our mandatory spending for food assistance which rang in at $104 Billion. We're not talking about a negligible expense here, illegal immigration is a notable and cumbersome expense to the American economy. Here's a bigger picture of how much we spend due to immigration compared to total expenses. Keep in mind, the $116 Billion of immigration expenses technically comes from these other categories and this chart includes all major groups such as the overwhelmingly huge expenses of Medicare/Medicaid/Health, Social Security, and Military spending.
This illustrates that Immigration costs are only surpassed by Medicare/Medicaid/Health, Social Security, Military spending, and the Other category (everything not listed) which accounts for a larger amount in both the Mandatory and Discretionary spending categories. So, effectively Immigration would rank 6th in national expenses if we were to plot it this way. For reference in case the chart is not easy to read for some of the other items, here are the spending categories that are less than what immigration costs us annually.
- Food Assistance ($104 B)
- Education ($70 B)
- Housing & Community ($63 B)
- International Affairs ($41 B)
- Energy & Environment ($39 B)
- Unemployment ($36 B)
- Transportation ($26 B)
Still, helping people is the moral choice right? Even at a cost?
The short answer here is, which people? We can't look at displaced jobs and $116 Billion annually and operate under the assumption that we're not hurting some people by helping others. Although it's easy to virtue signal and point at incidents like the baby being taken from her mother, we need to be authentic about the big picture as well. There are currently about 325.7 million people in the United States as estimated by Google based on previous census information. That means that at this time, if every single one of those residents paid an equal share of taxes, each person would pay $356.16 as a direct result of immigration. However, not everyone pays taxes in the first place, so in reality for working Americans it's much more. The 325.7 million includes children, the unemployed, the underemployed, the incarcerated, and all other types of Americans. Pew Research says "More than 150 million Americans are part of the U.S. workforce in a 2016 article by Drew DeSilver. Based on that benchmark, it's likely more than double that cost per working American.
So, this brings us to a bit of a crossroads. Is it morally better to cater to the truly oppressed individuals coming across the border or to cater to residents of the United States, including low income families that are directly impacted via job displacement and increased taxes. Except, it's not really that simple still! If it were that simple one could propose that the moral high ground is to let the immigrants in and compete for success in the country so at least everyone gets an equal opportunity (the argument is because we're recognizing equal humanity and opportunity to everyone roughly speaking, it is then more moral). But, it's not that simple because what we're failing to identify at that point is that those who are in the position to cross the border and enter the US illegally are but a small drop in a large ocean of oppressed people in the world. Check out the World Poverty Clock and you'll see the number of individuals in the world that are living in poverty is approximately 644 million. Are we to presume that the current flow of illegal immigrants are more worthy of our assistance than other outsiders that don't have an avenue to get to the US on their own? Should we not let everybody that wants in have a pathway here, perhaps even help get people here? Ah, but as is clear by the already astounding cost to tax payers, we wouldn't be able to afford it... at all. We're not incredibly far from critical mass already unless there is significant Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security reform, and we're certainly all hurt from the current amount of illegal immigration whether we like to admit it or not. We can't handle significantly more than what's already happening and any realist knows this.
But still, helping some is better than helping none right?
Outside of the simple economics that states we can't be the worlds safety net financially, another rather unspoken but intriguing concept is the idea that perhaps by securing our borders, offering a path to citizenship only to those who assimilate well to our society and can offer value to our country, and focusing on being the most productive society ever known to man, perhaps we can externally have a greater impact on the entire world by first getting our house in order. If you think about it, every major problem has it's roots. Many of the root issues in the world today have to do with corrupt governments around the world. Unless we're fixing those governments we can take in all the immigrants we want and still make absolutely 0 change in the long run. However, those governments inevitably collapse when said government cannot compete in the global market. The global market can be impacted by having strong players like the US driving it. So, by focusing on our own growth, it stands to reason that we would increase the competitive nature of the entire global market forcing the hand of other nations to either adapt or inspire an internal revolution. If we're able to drive change in the global economy we will inevitably bring more people out of poverty than we could ever hope to do by allowing illegal immigrants into the country. Isn't that a better outcome? Isn't helping a higher percentage of people over time more valuable than helping a tiny portion now?
Play this mental exercise in your head really quick. Two paths. One path is to always take in as many immigrants as possible and make real change on a small level at a large cost, but it will feel very good. The other path is to tighten our borders, be strict about who we let in our country, and create the most efficient machine possible that will inevitably launch the entire world into a much more advanced society with a much higher standard of living all across the board. This will not only be done by setting an example in the market for others to follow, but also (and probably understated in this article) by innovating in ways that help everyone in the world. These things have happened in the past and can happen again. Think about some of the innovations that originated in America: Electricity, the phone, cars, the internet, tons of medical innovations, you get the picture... These innovations either directly or indirectly improved the standard of living throughout most of the globe. We already ship food to starving people around the world through charity. We provide medicine for free through charity and even some businesses do so at insanely marked down prices to those in third world countries, something they would never have had access to without America. We're not monsters! Anyway, to complete the mental exercise, in 100 years if you look back, which policy will have created the better future? Now, let's pivot to another question. Based on that answer, is it morally better to enforce strict immigration policies knowing the impact of illegal immigration and the probable direction of the economy by addressing it, or is it morally better to keep loose borders and softer immigration policies that accept those costs but with the intent of helping people that need help now?
But what about the nursing mother whose baby was pried from her arms?
This isn't to say that we can't have nuanced discussion about particular parts of our immigration policy that need tweaking. I'm wanting to start with a very general view of why we might want strict immigration enforcement. Another ethical question centers around the separation of families. It sounds like some awful thing we're doing to people, but it's important to note that our policies on immigration are public, and for us to be able to separate kids from their families, said families had to make the conscious decision to bring their kids to the US knowing full well that if they are caught the cost of their crime is deportation of the adults resulting in separation. Trump actually wanted chain migration policies where the whole family left together, keeping said family in tact. I could see a good argument for this being more ethical. However, he was not able to get those policies passed. In any case, if you intrude upon another country, the impetus is on you to assess the regulations of that country and make your own risk assessment and ultimate decisions. It takes some mental gymnastics to paint the US as the bad guy here doesn't it? It's either the adults that make the decision to immigrate illegally (with or without children who would be their responsibility), or the governments that make their country so horrible to live in that it's worth the risk that are encroaching on the liberty of others (Americans) here, whether they feel they have justification or not. America is the most charitable country in the world by a massive margin. We have legal immigration policies and the most ethnically diverse history in the world to ever be successful. If anything, even with the current 0 tolerance policy there's no intellectually honest way to not admit we're still the leaders in the world in the fight on global poverty.
So, what is the moral policy here?
I would argue that strict immigration policies are the morally superior choice and will have the greatest impact in the long run. Probably a rather leading question at this point, but what are your thoughts? Does anybody have any insights or disagreements with the information as presented? Do you think we should be strict or relaxed on illegal immigration policy in the US? I'd love to hear what others think!
If you think this article should be seen by more people, upvote and/or resteem. I will not be using any bid bots on this post